EDC vs. IDC

[Praxis]

So then don't you have to ban Dimensional Cape?

I mean, in some sense, it is definite enough to say "Don't click the C-stick while Meta is in the Dimensional Cape", but mechanically, the 'extension' is something that happens even when Caping into the ground "normally" (i.e. with the control stick). It's just that it happens once.

What about going sideways? Wouldn't a small rocking of the control stick - even unintentional - extend the cape just one, two clicks?

Yes, yes, and yes.

That's why it made us all fight about how exactly to define IDC in the BRoom.

If you define IDC as extending the dimensional cape with the C-stick....

Well then, EDC isn't bannable.

If you define IDC as any extension of the dimensional cape, then EDC is banned, but so is virtually any usage of Dimensional Cape that results in you touching the ground and slightly moving the analog stick >_> So you'd have to ban the whole move.

(also, EDC can only go sideways, you can't physically move your finger fast enough to stall in place)


The fact is that no one has ever enforced the IDC ban. :/


EDIT:

THOSE JUST TUNING IN:
READ THIS

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[swordgard]

Yes, yes, and yes.

That's why it made us all fight about how exactly to define IDC in the BRoom.

If you define IDC as extending the dimensional cape with the C-stick....

Well then, EDC isn't bannable.

If you define IDC as any extension of the dimensional cape, then EDC is banned, but so is virtually any usage of Dimensional Cape that results in you touching the ground and slightly moving the analog stick >_> So you'd have to ban the whole move.

(also, EDC can only go sideways, you can't physically move your finger fast enough to stall in place)


The fact is that no one has ever enforced the IDC ban. :/


EDIT:

THOSE JUST TUNING IN:
READ THIS

Im still gonna laugh if someone does it fast enough to stall indefinitly XD


Youd need like insane speed to do it, but its theoretically possible XD

Its just that usually, joystick inputs are outpriorized by cstick inputs, but these last only one frame. Therefore when you hold down on control stick and press up over and over on cstick, then you are moving up 1 frame then down the other, which you can technically do using EDC if your insanely fast XD.

 

[RDK]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=245504

RDK, spread your knowledge. It'll be interesting to see you debate against the general community, and not only Debaters.

Gee, what do you know; it's what I've been saying all along. It's up to the TO's discretion to watch for IDC; it's a completely separate button input method from general caping. All this talk about not being able to differentiate IDC from EDC is nonsense.

Enforcing it is just a matter of catching it, and it falls under the umbrella of any other excessive stall tactic.

 

[Mewter]

That's a beautiful post, Praxis.
I believe Praxis just summarized the entire debate and solution in a legendary wall of text. Game over.

-EDC is a completely different button input.
-EDC may not be ban worthy, and it may be, but...
-IDC: Any extension of Dimension Cape; outlaws EDC.
-Thus EDC is banned anyways.
-But no one enforces it.

I love your post.
All this time I was misinformed to what EDC actually was. Sorry.

 

[Praxis]

That's a beautiful post, Praxis.
I believe Praxis just summarized the entire debate and solution in a legendary wall of text. Game over.

-EDC is a completely different button input.
-EDC may not be ban worthy, and it may be, but...
-IDC: Any extension of Dimension Cape; outlaws EDC.
-Thus EDC is banned anyways.
-But no one enforces it.

I love your post.
All this time I was misinformed to what EDC actually was. Sorry.

<3

But one thing you missed is this issue;
if ANY extension of Dimensional Cape is banned, then a player can technically be DQ'd for slightly rotating his analog stick while using regular Dimensional Cape onto the ground, because technically, that causes a slight extension.

There's no clearly defined point at which you've extended the Dimensional Cape "enough" for it to be considered IDC/EDC!

Hence, banning IDC under the banner of "all extensions of Dimensional Cape" means you're banning Dimensional Cape onstage.

But banning IDC under the banner of "using C-stick while using Dimensional Cape" means that EDC is not banned, but you can't prove someone used the C-stick while watching a replay.


What a dilemma, eh?

 

[RDK]

But banning IDC under the banner of "using C-stick while using Dimensional Cape" means that EDC is not banned, but you can't prove someone used the C-stick while watching a replay.


What a dilemma, eh?

Not necessarily. If it happens once, call a TO over to watch the rest of the match.

Except in the case of the majority of players striking a deal before the tournament to all use IDC at the same exact time so there aren't enough TO's to watch over every single match, there really isn't a problem.

 

[DMG]

Lolololol the following post is indeed a joke. Don't take it seriously.

We shouldn't ban either. I like being able to avoid getting hit. So what if I can do it for a really long time?

No seriously, just a joke people

Not necessarily. If it happens once, call a TO over to watch the rest of the match.

Except in the case of the majority of players striking a deal before the tournament to all use IDC at the same exact time so there aren't enough TO's to watch over every single match, there really isn't a problem.

Relying on someone else to "watch over" a match is one thing, but to watch a Match AND a players hands? That's asking a lot from a TO. Not only that, but you really don't want things to be soely in a TO's discretion unless it absolutely has to be, do you?


Both IDC and EDC should be banned. Distinguishing the two shouldn't matter if you can't extend DC in the first place. Accidentally Extending it though might be a problem, I would not know how to make a rule distinguishing extending it along the lines of EDC/IDC compared to what Praxis explained earlier with touching the ground or whatever lol.

 

['V']

Oh ok. Now that I read what Praxis posted, I'm saying that EDC shouldn't be banned because it only goes in one direction and can't be used for stalling.

 

[DMG]

Actually it CAN go both directions if you have fast fingers.

 

[Praxis]

Theoretically perhaps, I don't know if that's humanly possible LOL
Fiction is barely able to keep it up going one way, flipping it to the other side of the analog stick without falling out of the EDC would have to be INCREDIBLY fast. Let's have Reflex try it.

EDIT: For the record I'm not expressing an opinion either way.

 

['V']

True, but that's gotta take quite a bit of dedication and not to mention a thumb that's full of energy. lol

As long as it isn't used for stalling, it should be good.

 

[DMG]

EDC, from what I can honestly tell, is exactly like IDC except you are using slightly different inputs and it's probably a lot harder (some people might find it easier, I know I find it harder).

I actually have changed directions with this a few times, but only like 4 max before I'm like "Why am I doing this? I could be playing slower with Wario or Diddy" lol.

Honestly unless someone find out something different about this extension of DC, like you can get hit by lasers/grabbed/something weird that doesn't happen with IDC, then it should be banned since it's practically the same thing done with different inputs.

 

[orange/xd]

I think they're both better off banned.

 

[PK-ow!]

There's something ... unclean, or .... not imprecise, but improper, about stating tournament rules in terms of manipulation of a controller. It should be in terms of mechanics, leaving inputs to however the players can get the machine to make their intentions happen.
Then again, I suppose tournament conduct rules do exist -implicitly, anyway - in the form of statements like "Don't unplug your opponent's controller" and "Don't obscure the opponent's main way of viewing the game screen."


Now, not to steal the thread, but a reminder, that what we are doing is the evaluation of just the conditional statement: If IDC is banned then EDC should be / is banned. As separate from the question of if EDC is broken.


I believe the conditional is true. I agree (with.. adumbrodeus? thread reviewing ugh) that mechanically it's the same thing (that is, I believe this conditional takes the form that 'If IDC is banned then EDC is banned,' and holds in virtue of identity between the "two").

Putting that aside, though. Let's think about this. What's broken about IDC is that your character disappears. But, a weaker condition than that, is that your character is gone, and may be gone for an indefinite period, and also - and this is crucial, that it is also true - that the point of reappearance is indeterminate.

With both of those things being variable, it is then true that, even knowing the DC will terminate, it may have absolutely no answer. MK can use DC quickly, and can reappear out of it safely. Having the hurtbox come back is only a difference in words if invulnerability still falls out of the math.


And if that's right, then the conditional is true, because the consequent is true.


A separate argument, though it goes along the same lines, is that, it's obvious the thread of Dimensional Cape extending is that it creates a game state which is let's say clearly degenerate - a character is gone. It can "govern its own termination", by letting the game end it, or the player has the option of making it go farther. Now think.... this leaves an infinitude of possibilities of the move open, with (a) only one of them being special among the others as having "the raw game" as its source, and (b) at least one (snicker) option, in that infinitude, being unacceptable for competition. The decision seems obvious; you have to force the one option.

You have to force it if at all possible.

If it means banning DC or banning MK, that's another question. My point here is just, here's another argument that I think establishes: EDC should be banned.

And thus establishes the conditional.


I expect to be corrected on some factual point. 9_9

 

[demonictoonlink]

Eh...I see no problem with EDC for like three seconds. It's a legit mindgame. The best way to monitor this is to always play with infinite replay. You think your opponent went too long, you record and have it checked.

 

[Praxis]

Eh...I see no problem with EDC for like three seconds. It's a legit mindgame. The best way to monitor this is to always play with infinite replay. You think your opponent went too long, you record and have it checked.

But...what is too long?
At what point do we step in and say "it's illegal to do ____ for 4 seconds but not 3"?

Also, PK-ow!, great post.

 

[CRASHiC]

I'm more worried about the get out of jail free card it gives players, and how it obliterates their spacing and zoning games.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Eh...I see no problem with EDC for like three seconds. It's a legit mindgame. The best way to monitor this is to always play with infinite replay. You think your opponent went too long, you record and have it checked.

You can't mandate people to have hacked wiis though, otherwise we would ennforce no random tripping everywhere.

But...what is too long?

At what point do we step in and say "it's illegal to do ____ for 4 seconds but not 3"?

Needs to be tested if this would be done, but it would require eccessive work to determine how long, and again, how do you prove that they did it for so long without infinite replays (which, again, can't be mandated). It's too difficult to enforce.

I'm more worried about the get out of jail free card it gives players, and how it obliterates their spacing and zoning games.

This is the other reason IDC is banned. Even minus the stalling issue, it makes unreadable approaches, riskless escapes, makes zoning and projectiles useless., it literally bypasses the games mechanics (the literal and functional definition of broken).

Basically, and extending beyond almost no extention ruins the gameplay of this game. Invincibility and invisiblity is fine for a set duration, but without that set duration, the move is beyond broken in most contexts, if not all.

 

[Cirno]

I'm more worried about the get out of jail free card it gives players, and how it obliterates their spacing and zoning games.

Doesn't the dimensional cape do that without being extended or infinite though?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Doesn't the dimensional cape do that without being extended or infinite though?

Depends. Say you're playing against a falco at long range, and he's SHDL'ing. You DC inwards, and you travel a decent distance... and you're still a long way away from him. You EDC though and you can get all the way in to where you can start whacking him with your sword. A poor example, but does it make sense?

 

[CRASHiC]

Doesn't the dimensional cape do that without being extended or infinite though?

Yes, but the diminish cape has a punishable range. EDC does not. EDC extends the cape to go the extra distance of Snake's uptilt.

 

[codfish92]

Doesn't the dimensional cape do that without being extended or infinite though?

doesn't go far enough to be as huge of a spacer as EDC or IDC

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Yes, but the diminish cape has a punishable range. EDC does not. EDC extends the cape to go the extra distance of Snake's uptilt.

It goes further than that. You can cross the entire stage with it. At least last I heard, you just couldn't turn it around, or do it in place.

See?

 

[CRASHiC]

It goes further than that. You can cross the entire stage with it. At least last I heard, you just couldn't turn it around, or do it in place.

See?

Really, thank you. There is quite the confusion in the debate hall about the technique. Thank you.

 

[Xerit]

I really think this whole thing is dumb. Its like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

IDC is EDC its the same move. Who cares if you waggle the c-stick for one and the control stick for the other. The effect is the same.

The only way to effectively stop EDC is to either ban the Dimensional Cape or ban MK. Anything else will be entirely subjective and exploitable because there isn't a way to set a "limit" or monitor usage.

Its just like Planking getting "banned" with the 70 ledgegrab limit (I've heard this has been shortened to 50 now?) so the MK's who wanted to plank anyway switched from abusing ledge invincibility frames and fair to abusing MK's ridiculous hang time in the air and now we have Air Planking. Which just like EDC is impossible to ban because its impossible to really define.

I know that a large minority doesn't want MK banned however even that minority has conceded time and again that multiple individual MK moves and strategies have to be banned.

My question is, exactly how many skill and strategy bans does one character need to recieve before it becomes clear that the problem isn't individual moves or strats, but the character who brings them all together?

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Really, thank you. There is quite the confusion in the debate hall about the technique. Thank you.

Don't thank me, thank Praxis/Swordgard. They posted the info on the technique. I just copy and pasted lol.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Yes, but the diminish cape has a punishable range. EDC does not. EDC extends the cape to go the extra distance of Snake's uptilt.

The range is punishable, but the beginning and ending lag is not. Snake's U-tilt will hit regardless because it comes out before 17 frames.

If you DC against a camping Falco, you're going to get punished by a laser. If you EDC against a camping Falco, you're either going to get punished by a laser, or because you're in close range, any one of his CQC attacks.

The only way to effectively stop EDC is to either ban the Dimensional Cape or ban MK. Anything else will be entirely subjective and exploitable because there isn't a way to set a "limit" or monitor usage.

No.

Listen to this: the only way to effectively stop D3's downthrow infinite on the characters he has it on is to either ban his downthrow altogether, or ban the character for those six match-ups. It sounds silly, right? But it's essentially the same thing. Either both are enforcable, or both aren't.

You could say that it's obvious between a regular DC and an EDC that gives you any benefit (which it is) and any witnesses/judges/TOs/players/whoever can call it out, just like how it's obvious that King DeDeDe does an extra D-throw in place against a DK.

Or you could say that it isn't obvious between a regular DC and an EDC because it's a subjective call, and I could say that it isn't obvious if King DeDeDe might or might not have taken a small step between the two down-throws, or might have snuck in an extra down-throw when nobody was looking.

Any rule that requires somebody to actually watch and notice it is either obvious or not, and either these rules or fine, or how matches are played should be changed so that nobody can bypass the rules. If you're playing in pools/early rounds of brackets, you might not have people watching the match, and you might get away with an EDC or extra down-throw, and your opponent probably isn't going to call a judge or TO to call you out for it because it would seem "douchey" to some.

What you just said could be applied to any rule, not only EDC. All ruling is subjective and exploitable, starting from the TO's discretion (ultimately, they're running the tournament and choose the rules, and might not matter if you accidentally put the timer on 7 minutes but the match already completed or whatever) to actual judge ruling (to decide whether or not something is important enough to rule on or what's best for the situation, such as what happened with M2K vs. Armada at Genesis). That trait is not unique to the EDC.

Its just like Planking getting "banned" with the 70 ledgegrab limit (I've heard this has been shortened to 50 now?)

Not banned in every region (MidWest lol).

I don't even agree with the ruling in the first place (there wasn't extensive research or knowledge into the subject beforehand), but that's a different thing. MK is not the only character who can plank. UTD Zac planked someone (I don't even remember who, lol) with Game and Watch at Genesis, and no one really seemed to care.

so the MK's who wanted to plank anyway switched from abusing ledge invincibility frames and fair to abusing MK's ridiculous hang time in the air and now we have Air Planking.

You mean air-camping, AKA just turtling in the air, AKA something that Wario's have been doing and have been better at doing for the past few months? It's not new simply because MK can do it effectively as well.

Which just like EDC is impossible to ban because its impossible to really define.

Incorrect, somewhat.

EDC is a not-infinite extension of MKs Dimensional Cape. Very easy to define.
Air-camping is playing safely and turtling in the air. Mushy definition, but hardly broken regardless (it's just a strategy).

I know that a large minority doesn't want MK banned however even that minority has conceded time and again that multiple individual MK moves and strategies have to be banned.

Multiple? The only one is Dimensional Cape, which is banned under the stalling rule (as it's an infinite stall) and it's a glitch regardless. It would be banned for any character. Multiple characters can plank and air-camp, the latter certainly isn't ban-worthy and the former arguably isn't, and if it is we limited it prematurely (albeit it's still possible to plank with that rule).

My question is, exactly how many skill and strategy bans does one character need to recieve before it becomes clear that the problem isn't individual moves or strats, but the character who brings them all together?

Refer to above.

MKs dimensional cape glitch is banned because it's an infinite stall; it would have been banned with any character in the game.

Planking is not an MK specific technique, arguably isn't banworthy.

Air-camping is not an MK specific technique, definitely isn't banworthy.

 

[DMG]

People didn't care that much because when UTD Zac did it becuase he used G&W and did it to a Snake. Further more, he didn't go over the edge grab limit, and he didn't use it to "excessively stall". THAT'S why people didn't fuss about it.

 

[RDK]

My question is, exactly how many skill and strategy bans does one character need to recieve before it becomes clear that the problem isn't individual moves or strats, but the character who brings them all together?

The character is made up of individual moves and strats. So no, the entire character doesn't warrant a ban; certain techniques implemented via the characters moves warrant a ban.

Notice how the cape itself isn't banned; however, using IDC is.

 

['V']

Geez.. there's already too much confusion about it.

 

[Cirno]

Depends. Say you're playing against a falco at long range, and he's SHDL'ing. You DC inwards, and you travel a decent distance... and you're still a long way away from him. You EDC though and you can get all the way in to where you can start whacking him with your sword. A poor example, but does it make sense?

I get the difference between them, but regardless of the distance traveled, isn't a barely trackable move (due to invisibility) going to mess up your zoning and spacing since you don't know where to move?


The best Falco can do in that situation is continue SHDL'ing, as the only thing that will hurt his game here, is if he is hit with the attack portion of the DC ( which he can avoid using camera pan clues), as the lag on DC extended or not is very punishable and landing anywhere else should get him hit.

Yes, but the diminish cape has a punishable range. EDC does not. EDC extends the cape to go the extra distance of Snake's uptilt.

Punishable range is a pretty subjective concept.

I can DC to the edge or a platform for no lag and be punishable/unpunishable if depending on your prediction of my movement.

The idea of a get out of jail free card (nicely put btw) definitely seems like something that needs discussion for a ban, but right it seems very similar in effect to Zamus' Down B footstool.

I guess I'm having a hard time picturing it, I know people hate theory craft, but do you think you could paint a picture for me?

I really think this whole thing is dumb. Its like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

IDC is EDC its the same move. Who cares if you waggle the c-stick for one and the control stick for the other. The effect is the same.

Personally, if I don't even get the point of the control stick aspect of it, as the the c-stick works just fine, gives more control, and is technically the EDC as long as you don't stay in it infinitely.

The only way to effectively stop EDC is to either ban the Dimensional Cape or ban MK. Anything else will be entirely subjective and exploitable because there isn't a way to set a "limit" or monitor usage.

I wanna say I agree.

I think someone already said something like it was similar to DDD's infinite.

Nothing stops MK from getting the lead, and EDCing from side to side since he is coming out once a safe distance( unless his opponent is playing sonic lol) making it technically not a infinite stalling technique but a spacing technique.


But on that same note can't Zelda do something similar with her up B?

Punishable just at the beginning and at it's end. Invisibility with camera pan clues. Attack that comes out for approach options. And landing a certain way give it no lag.

Zamus' footstool only works similar in the aspect that it is a get out of jail free card, as footstooling items is too situational to be included imo.


If we're going to ban a technique we need to have clear rules that the move breaks so we can apply it universally and not biased towards one character.

Its just like Planking getting "banned" with the 70 ledgegrab limit (I've heard this has been shortened to 50 now?) so the MK's who wanted to plank anyway switched from abusing ledge invincibility frames and fair to abusing MK's ridiculous hang time in the air and now we have Air Planking. Which just like EDC is impossible to ban because its impossible to really define.

Air planking is hard to ban and define because the idea of planking in the air is impossible.
Planking is abusing the invincibility frames of the edge to stall. And as we know, stalling is an illegal tactic. The only reason there was even any discussion over it's ban was due to the fact that some characters can punish the technique.


If you're in the air avoiding attacks/ waiting for your opponent to approach since you have the lead/ looking for a better position, you're not only punishable, but easily readable since you only have two options on your way down(out of jumps).

A great example of this is M2K vs Lain during Genesis. Air camped to avoid the infinite and got upaired inbetween missed dairs, and infinited upon attack and dodge landings.

I know that a large minority doesn't want MK banned however even that minority has conceded time and again that multiple individual MK moves and strategies have to be banned.

Really?

I thought the only MK specific technique that was banned was the IDC.

What were the others? You might have to pm them to a mod too since IDC is the only one in the recommended rule set.
o:

My question is, exactly how many skill and strategy bans does one character need to recieve before it becomes clear that the problem isn't individual moves or strats, but the character who brings them all together?

When the character in question overcentralizes the game by force.

By bring, I don't know if you meant has access to or the originator/sole user of -- but both methods of thinking are wrong.

If Samus could use and was the first character to use all of the tactics we have banned, it wouldn't make her bannable, just the techniques. Same goes with if she was the only one who could use them.

Now if she was character that was just so far and away from every other character that it came down to use Samus or lose, then she'd be banned.

--------------------

AvaricePanda stop typing my thoughts before I think them.

 

[Xerit]

No.

Listen to this: the only way to effectively stop D3's downthrow infinite on the characters he has it on is to either ban his downthrow altogether, or ban the character for those six match-ups. It sounds silly, right? But it's essentially the same thing. Either both are enforcable, or both aren't.

You could say that it's obvious between a regular DC and an EDC that gives you any benefit (which it is) and any witnesses/judges/TOs/players/whoever can call it out, just like how it's obvious that King DeDeDe does an extra D-throw in place against a DK.

Or you could say that it isn't obvious between a regular DC and an EDC because it's a subjective call, and I could say that it isn't obvious if King DeDeDe might or might not have taken a small step between the two down-throws, or might have snuck in an extra down-throw when nobody was looking.

A standing infinite will show up on a replay every single time. You can tell thats what happened every single time.

Can you say the same thing about IDC or EDC? One or two clicks? Was it just an accidental movement of the control stick that gave an extra couple "inches" or was it deliberate to avoid that hitbox on the enemies tilt?

You don't know. You can't know, and its not something you can figure out by watching a replay.

The comparison was a good move, and expected, but I don't think particularly accurate.

Any rule that requires somebody to actually watch and notice it is either obvious or not, and either these rules or fine, or how matches are played should be changed so that nobody can bypass the rules.

Please clarify this part as its incomprehensible. At least to me.

If you're playing in pools/early rounds of brackets, you might not have people watching the match, and you might get away with an EDC or extra down-throw, and your opponent probably isn't going to call a judge or TO to call you out for it because it would seem "douchey" to some.

Irrelevant. That doesn't make it any more or less legal/bannable.

What you just said could be applied to any rule, not only EDC. All ruling is subjective and exploitable, starting from the TO's discretion (ultimately, they're running the tournament and choose the rules, and might not matter if you accidentally put the timer on 7 minutes but the match already completed or whatever) to actual judge ruling (to decide whether or not something is important enough to rule on or what's best for the situation, such as what happened with M2K vs. Armada at Genesis). That trait is not unique to the EDC.

How exactly is "No Items" subjective? Banned stages? Competetive rules are not and should not, be subjective. Especially not in a setting where a judge may or may not always be there to make calls, and may or may not always be impartial.

Not banned in every region (MidWest lol).

So?

I don't even agree with the ruling in the first place (there wasn't extensive research or knowledge into the subject beforehand), but that's a different thing. MK is not the only character who can plank. UTD Zac planked someone (I don't even remember who, lol) with Game and Watch at Genesis, and no one really seemed to care.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not. I very clearly do not agree with MK not being banned. That doesn't make my points any more or less valid.

MK isn't the only character who can plank. He is however arguably the most effective.

As said above, no one cared because it was G&W vs Snake, and it didn't break current anti-planking rules (meaning it wasn't excessive like the original Plank).

You mean air-camping, AKA just turtling in the air, AKA something that Wario's have been doing and have been better at doing for the past few months? It's not new simply because MK can do it effectively as well.

Air Camping, Air Planking its really the same thing. Its a barely legal stalling tactic disguised as a defensive posture. Its new because of its application through MK who is arguably better at it thanks to 4 more jumps and a superior ledge planking game to back up the air planking as well as EDC

Incorrect, somewhat.

EDC is a not-infinite extension of MKs Dimensional Cape. Very easy to define.
Air-camping is playing safely and turtling in the air. Mushy definition, but hardly broken regardless (it's just a strategy).

And how would you suggest we tell the difference?

If IDC (waggling the c-stick) is banned and EDC (waggling the control stick) isn't how do we monitor which one you used to move across the level? Kindly ask you to show the nice judge how you did it?

Multiple? The only one is Dimensional Cape, which is banned under the stalling rule (as it's an infinite stall) and it's a glitch regardless. It would be banned for any character.

Planking is also "banned" in a sense through the ledgegrab rule which was an adaptation of the general stalling rule designed to stop planking specifically. If you want to just call that the "stalling" rule thats fine, but its deceptive since the rule was changed in order to prevent planking.

Multiple characters can plank and air-camp, the latter certainly isn't ban-worthy and the former arguably isn't, and if it is we limited it prematurely (albeit it's still possible to plank with that rule).

Your opinion. One I'm not sure very many other people share.

Refer to above.

MKs dimensional cape glitch is banned because it's an infinite stall; it would have been banned with any character in the game.

So at what point does 'extending the dimensional cape" become IDC? 30 seconds? A minute? Are you going to DQ based on which controller input you used to achieve the effect? How are you going to monitor that?

As I said above, I doubt most cheaters would be nice enough to cheat again so a recently called judge can DQ them, so doing it by controller input would be pretty stupid.

Planking is not an MK specific technique, arguably isn't banworthy.

Air-camping is not an MK specific technique, definitely isn't banworthy.

And which other character can combine Planking/Air-Camping/5 jumps/perfect recovery/edc/IDC?

Oh thats right, just MK.

One or two may not be a big deal. All together...


EDIT: @Above

Sorry in advance for not breaking your post down like Avarice Panda, but since you had almost the same argument I dont' need to repeat myself in the same post. If theres something I need to address again I will though.

However:

Air planking is hard to ban and define because the idea of planking in the air is impossible.
Planking is abusing the invincibility frames of the edge to stall. And as we know, stalling is an illegal tactic. The only reason there was even any discussion over it's ban was due to the fact that some characters can punish the technique.


If you're in the air avoiding attacks/ waiting for your opponent to approach since you have the lead/ looking for a better position, you're not only punishable, but easily readable since you only have two options on your way down(out of jumps).

A great example of this is M2K vs Lain during Genesis. Air camped to avoid the infinite and got upaired inbetween missed dairs, and infinited upon attack and dodge landings.

Define for me the difference between "air camping" and "stalling"?

 

[AvaricePanda]

Air-camping isn't stalling.

With stalling, you're trying to make yourself unable to be hit. Stalling would be MKs infinite dimensional cape, Peach's bomber stall in Melee, Jiggs' rising Pound, etc. The only way to hit the opponent in these situations (if you can at all) is to force yourself to SD, and the opponent is still in the lead if they have a stock lead.

With air-camping, it's just like normal camping, except...in the air. Would you call Snake's grenade camping or Falco's laser camping stalling? No. Granted, that's a bad example because they're throwing out projectiles while air-campers like Wario and MK are trying to bait senseless or punishable approaches, but it's generally the same. You wouldn't call out a Marth who only does retreating F-airs for, "stalling," as they aren't stalling, they're just spacing and zoning themselves so well that aside from projectiles, they will rarely get hit and can predict the opponent.

tl;dr: Good spacing and zoning.

Projectiles and punishing predicted moves can punish it. It's difficult, but it's just like in any other situation where you're facing somebody with good zoning, like a Snake who's really good at keeping you out with his disjointed tilts and grenade camping. It's beatable. Read the jumps that MK has left, notice a Wario's DIing habits, do whatever that you'd do to beat any other character with really good zoning; it's just in the air.

A standing infinite will show up on a replay every single time. You can tell thats what happened every single time.

Assuming that the Wii has replay hacks, or the match was under 3 minutes, but true.

Can you say the same thing about IDC or EDC? One or two clicks? Was it just an accidental movement of the control stick that gave an extra couple "inches" or was it deliberate to avoid that hitbox on the enemies tilt?

I fail to see how someone in EDC can deliberately avoid an attack, because that would have to mean that the MKs opponent was trying to attack the MK while he wasn't visible, which doesn't work, and is really just his opponent's fault. The only time that should happen is if the opponent figures that the MK would try to use a regular DC into him (which is silly, given its start-up and cool-down frames), tries to punish where he would be, and the MK crosses up. Even THEN, it may still be punishable depending on what attack the opponent used. And if not, it's obvious that it was an EDC.

Whether or not it was intentional could be a concern, but generally, unless it's a very slight boost out of the norm, it would be intentional. Somebody can't "accidentally" repeatedly tap up on the C-stick or "accidentally" go down-right, up-right, down-right, up-right, down-right, up-right on the Control stick.

Please clarify this part as its incomprehensible. At least to me.

Bad wording on my part.

Rules that require someone to watch the game that essentially say, "This tactic is illegal," are either enforceable or not enforceable. I see the argument that EDC isn't enforceable, yet D3's infinite is. The reason I said that was because people use both arguments.

Either both are enforceable because both can be monitored/watched, or neither are enforceable because it would have to require a judge with every match at an MK or D3 on it to make sure that they didn't sneak away with a couple, or skip the replay.

Irrelevant. That doesn't make it any more or less legal/bannable.

I wasn't talking of it being any less legal or bannable (I said multiple times in my other posts in this thread and in the MK ban thread that ANY extension of MKs dimensional cape is banworthy and it clearly says so in the rules, because it says that the glitch itself is banned, not the infinite stalling tactic, but the glitch itself).

I was using that example to counter your statement that a ban of EDC isn't enforcable while a ban of any other move is. People can get away with these things in tournament.

How exactly is "No Items" subjective? Banned stages? Competetive rules are not and should not, be subjective. Especially not in a setting where a judge may or may not always be there to make calls, and may or may not always be impartial.

"No Items" is technically a subjective rule because it's under the belief that items shouldn't be played in competitive gameplay. There is no official, clear-cut, no questions asked statement that says that "Items should always be banned." It was a decision made by the majority of the community and SBR and the TOs of tournament.

That wasn't where I was getting at at all nor was it a point I was trying to make, but you ignored the main point of my paragraph and instead targeted five words of my argument.

Note that subjective means opinionated, and objective means factually-based.

The decision to not let M2K and Armada play the 4th and 5th games of their set in Genesis had subjectivity in it. The fact that they even had a panel vote on the Dojo vs. DEHF match had subjectivity in it. The Magus DQ rule has subjectivity in it. The rule of Tournament Host X to DQ or not DQ player Y for being five and 1 second late to a pools match has subjectivity in it. Much tournament ruling is subjective, and EDC is not unique in this aspect.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not. I very clearly do not agree with MK not being banned. That doesn't make my points any more or less valid.

MK isn't the only character who can plank. He is however arguably the most effective.

As said above, no one cared because it was G&W vs Snake, and it didn't break current anti-planking rules (meaning it wasn't excessive like the original Plank).

Your point was that planking was an MK tactic that we banned. It wasn't an MK tactic, as quite a few characters can do it as well. Simply because MK can arguably do it best, does not mean that it's his tactic.

Dojo didn't break any current rules by camping out the timer on DEHF, yet there was a panel to vote on whether he should have been DQd. Granted, UTD Zac didn't break any rules on planking, but they're similar situations with different outcomes. On one side, no one seemed to care. On the other, there's a bunch of controversy because he did something legal, but it won.

Also, the original Plank (I'm going to guess that you're talking of the original Brawl Plank, A.K.A. SK92 vs. Plairnkk in like late September of last year) didn't break the ledgegrab rule either. He used a combination of edgegrabs and a very safe playstyle in general.

Air Camping, Air Planking its really the same thing. Its a barely legal stalling tactic disguised as a defensive posture. Its new because of its application through MK who is arguably better at it thanks to 4 more jumps and a superior ledge planking game to back up the air planking as well as EDC

Air-camping, the perfectly legal zoning defensive tactic? I honestly don't see how it's barely legal. The air-camper gets a percent lead, and they start camping. The opponent can approach and hit them. It's harder, because they're in disadvantageous positioning, but they can do it all the same.

EDC is banned, I don't know why you're bringing it up as a legit tactic.

And how would you suggest we tell the difference?

If IDC (waggling the c-stick) is banned and EDC (waggling the control stick) isn't how do we monitor which one you used to move across the level? Kindly ask you to show the nice judge how you did it?

Technically:

IDC is the name of the tactic that uses MK's Dimensional Cape glitch to stall a match infinitely. Has to be used by rapidly tapping C-stick up.

EDC is the name of the tactic that uses MK's Dimensional Cape glitch to gain extra distance. Can be used by either the C-stick up way or the control-stick way.

MKs Dimensional Cape glitch is banned.

AKA, both IDC and EDC and all types of glitched DC are banned.

You tell the difference between a regular DC and a glitched DC by noticing that one takes up more time and covers more distance.

Planking is also "banned" in a sense through the ledgegrab rule which was an adaptation of the general stalling rule designed to stop planking specifically. If you want to just call that the "stalling" rule thats fine, but its deceptive since the rule was changed in order to prevent planking.

Again, your argument was that we have all these rules specifically to keep MK in place.

We don't. We have these rules for either multiple characters, and there is only one rule that targets something that only MK can do.

Your opinion. One I'm not sure very many other people share.

True, but irrelevant considering that the statement was used to counter your initial argument that the rules were made to keep MK in place, which they were not. Multiple characters can do these things, so MK is not the sole reason for these rules except for the DC glitch ban.

So at what point does 'extending the dimensional cape" become IDC? 30 seconds? A minute? Are you going to DQ based on which controller input you used to achieve the effect? How are you going to monitor that?

Read all of my posts. I've said and quoted from the SBR official ruleset that, "MK's Infinite Dimensional Cape GLITCH is banned." In other words, any extension of MKs DC is banned.

And which other character can combine Planking/Air-Camping/5 jumps/perfect recovery/edc/IDC?

Oh thats right, just MK.

The latter two are banned and illegal. Perfect recovery is just false.

It really doesn't matter though, as it's completely ignoring my argument which was directed towards your initial statement that, "We have all of these rules specifically for MK, and at what point should we stop banning stuff about him and just ban him?" I retorted, and you ignored my argument and picked apart different and irrelevant parts of points I wasn't trying to make or things that really didn't matter to what I was trying to say.

 

[DMG]

Actually there are some stages where air camping becomes quite ridiculous against a larger portion of the cast.

I'm sure you know about Brinstar and Wario there... quite hard for characters even like Snake to beat Wario just by "reading his aerial movement".

 

[CRASHiC]

The idea of a get out of jail free card (nicely put btw) definitely seems like something that needs discussion for a ban, but right it seems very similar in effect to Zamus' Down B footstool.

I guess I'm having a hard time picturing it, I know people hate theory craft, but do you think you could paint a picture for me?

The amount of time the invincibility frames last on Zamus's down b is far less (its only a few frames, starting on frame 3 I believe, may be wrong). Zamus's downb goes about the same distance as the average roll. The EDC can go the distance of FD, and has invincibility frames for as long as you can keep it up for.

 

[DMG]

And you can technically change directions with it, making it basically the same thing as IDC except a bit harder for most people to do and with different inputs.

Just repeating that to make sure people understand.

 

['V']

Omg was that even necessary? Well.. I guess in this day in age of smash everything's pretty necessary. I got a good laugh out of it at least. lol =P

Edit: Well like I said in the first place, you're most likely better off banning it just to avoid this much confusion at least.

 

[CRASHiC]

Omg was that even necessary?

No, no it wasn't.

 

[Cirno]

And which other character can combine Planking/Air-Camping/5 jumps/perfect recovery/edc/IDC?

Oh thats right, just MK.

One or two may not be a big deal. All together...

Legally?
No character.


Illegally, sure MK as he is the only one who can use DC.

But that's like saying which other character can Plank/air-camp/ chaingrab/ Swallowcide/ 5 jumps/Super armor recovery/ Infinite chaingrab/ And Down B charge across the stage.

When you list individual traits of a character you can really only get that character.


Now any character can plank and air camp. Marth can plank extremely well, and air-camping is a big part of his defensive game. DDD and Kirby both have 5 jumps and DDD can plank pretty well too. Not to mention dair and bair camping, which are ofcourse in the air.Those two characters, aswell as any one else in the game can air camp, and no one does it better than Wario. DDD has his own specific banned tactic, and every character has a specific move/tactic which MK has no access to in the same way only he has access to the DC and it's perks. And there is no such thing as a perfect recovery.

EDIT: @Above

Sorry in advance for not breaking your post down like Avarice Panda, but since you had almost the same argument I dont' need to repeat myself in the same post. If theres something I need to address again I will though.

However:



Define for me the difference between "air camping" and "stalling"?

[IMG OF WIN not reposted to save space]

The amount of time the invincibility frames last on Zamus's down b is far less (its only a few frames, starting on frame 3 I believe, may be wrong). Zamus's downb goes about the same distance as the average roll. The EDC can go the distance of FD, and has invincibility frames for as long as you can keep it up for.

xDDDDDDDDDDD

I meant like (Snake sets grenade and awaits movement to f-tilt/grab ect, ect.) but your art skills are too good.


You misunderstood me though, not the actual down B, but the footstool she does off of items and enemies.

I know atleast it can go all of Lylat. If you've ever played a good ZSS they'll use this to get past edgeguarding.